Doubleplus Goodspeak

[Sarpedon]

Technically, one does not own a bird of prey. The government owns them and the falconer is allowed to use them, subject to stringent regulation.

 

[Opoponax]

Technically, one does not own a bird of prey. The government owns them and the falconer is allowed to use them, subject to stringent regulation.

Typical big government, oppressing my right to own the falcon of my choice. As an American who has casually wondered what it's like to have a large carnivorous bird on my wrist, that I think can go catch field mice and bring them back, I demand my God Given right to own whatever bird of prey I can afford. I don't actually want anything to do with falconry, but dammit, the Founding Fathers are surely rolling over in their graves.

 

[bilby]

Technically, one does not own a bird of prey. The government owns them and the falconer is allowed to use them, subject to stringent regulation.

Typical big government, oppressing my right to own the falcon of my choice. As an American who has casually wondered what it's like to have a large carnivorous bird on my wrist, that I think can go catch field mice and bring them back, I demand my God Given right to own whatever bird of prey I can afford. I don't actually want anything to do with falconry, but dammit, the Founding Fathers are surely rolling over in their graves.

Your right is enshrined in the Second Amendment; But most people are disinclined to participate in falconry with bare arms.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And to some extent he was. We see it on both sides. Trump's people want to ban some words, and some on the left want to ban others.

That's a pretty gross mischaracterization.

No it isn't. Note that "some on the left" doesn't mean I am saying government or even a sizable number of liberals are like that.

The people on the left who are into banning speech largely consist of radicals or students going through a phase. Certainly, such beliefs are reprehensible, but such people have always existed and always will. But here's what matters: those people don't have any power.

They are quickly gaining power in Canada.

Carlin's language was reflective of the times. I was a kid in the 70s and I like to think I managed to progress beyond the derogatory terms and language that, when I was in 5th grade, didn't understand was hurtful and bigoted. And I like to think that Carlin wouldn't have been a Trump supporter and would use language appropriate to communicate that.

Carlin wouldn't have voted for or have supporter either Trump or Hillary. Carlin would have said fuck them both. And he'd be right. Well actually, there is a slim chance that he MAY have supported Trump, but as a "burn it all down and start over" or "fuck the system and laugh at the politicians scrambling" voter.

Carlin most definitely would have been with Jordan Peterson on C-68.

 

[Opoponax]

No it isn't. Note that "some on the left" doesn't mean I am saying government or even a sizable number of liberals are like that.

The mischaracterization comes from equating what those in power can do compared to the control the essentially powerless have to make laws and policy. To state the obvious, conservatives control all three branches of the federal government in the U.S. A group of over-zealous college kids shouting down say, Anne Coulter, is bothersome, but it doesn't affect law or policy in the slightest. Such occurrences are like pimples that flare up and then go away. There is no real effect and it goes away as quickly as it sprung up.

They are quickly gaining power in Canada.

I'll admit I don't know what's going on in Canada, but I do know there's an actual Constitutional crisis here in the U.S. that presents not just a threat to American citizens, but to the entire world.

Carlin wouldn't have voted for or have supporter either Trump or Hillary. Carlin would have said fuck them both. And he'd be right. Well actually, there is a slim chance that he MAY have supported Trump, but as a "burn it all down and start over" or "fuck the system and laugh at the politicians scrambling" voter.

Carlin most definitely would have been with Jordan Peterson on C-68.

On this, I'm just gonna go with what someone else said and admit that I don't know what the fuck Carlin would've said. All I know is that it would be great entertainment.

 

[Elixir]

They are quickly gaining power in Canada.

I'm certainly not qualified to argue that, but please - can you give us just a few of the words they have banned?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The mischaracterization comes from equating what those in power can do compared to the control the essentially powerless have to make laws and policy.

So it was in your heads then, because I made no such equivalency.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They are quickly gaining power in Canada.

I'm certainly not qualified to argue that, but please - can you give us just a few of the words they have banned?

I'm not aware of words they have banned in law, nor did I say that they have banned any words yet. I said that they want to. And they do.

C-68 is the closest that I have seen them get so far, which gives power to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal not only to ban speech but to compel it, in accordance with their stated policy. The law says you can't discriminate on grounds of gender identity. That would be fine if it just meant you can't mistreat somebody because he calls himself "her", but the same law is enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal who has stated as a policy that discrimination includes failing to use "correct" gender pronouns. And if you look at the lists of these gender pronouns people are demanding to be called, they get out of hand very quickly "ze", "zer", and on the list goes. It gets comical but now has force of law behind it. What happened with Lindsey Shepherd at Laurier with the officers of the university coming down on her simply for showing a video of a debate in class, follows up on that. The school official states that by allowing gender pronouns to be questioned, she was abusing and even "dong violence" to anonymous students who purportedly complained (or did they? who knows, they won't be transparent about who or how many)

 

[Elixir]

They are quickly gaining power in Canada.

I'm certainly not qualified to argue that, but please - can you give us just a few of the words they have banned?

I'm not aware of words they have banned in law, nor did I say that they have banned any words yet. I said that they want to. And they do.

What words do they want to ban?

C-68 is the closest that I have seen them get so far, which gives power to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal not only to ban speech but to compel it, in accordance with their stated policy. The law says you can't discriminate on grounds of gender identity. That would be fine if it just meant you can't mistreat somebody because he calls himself "her", but the same law is enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal who has stated as a policy that discrimination includes failing to use "correct" gender pronouns. And if you look at the lists of these gender pronouns people are demanding to be called, they get out of hand very quickly "ze", "zer", and on the list goes. It gets comical but now has force of law behind it. What happened with Lindsey Shepherd at Laurier with the officers of the university coming down on her simply for showing a video of a debate in class, follows up on that. The school official states that by allowing gender pronouns to be questioned, she was abusing and even "dong violence" to anonymous students who purportedly complained (or did they? who knows, they won't be transparent about who or how many)

Interesting - and scary - but doesn't address the question (repeated in bold above).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Interesting - and scary - but doesn't address the question (repeated in bold above).

In that case of Peterson, they want to ban "him" and "her" used in the wrong place.

 

[Elixir]

Interesting - and scary - but doesn't address the question (repeated in bold above).

In that case of Peterson, they want to ban "him" and "her" used in the wrong place.

I think it's a humongous stretch to equivocate between some tribunal trying to dictate the context wherein a certain pronoun should be applied, and an actual Government Department being instructed to flat-out stop using non-controversial, meaningful terms like "evidence-based", "science-based" etc..
You might think they're similar, but they're worlds apart. Not that said tribunal might not have ambitions that would place them in a similar class of propagandists as the CDC has been forced into, but they're WAY far from that right now. The tribunal could simply refer to everyone as "it" - problem solved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Technically, one does not own a bird of prey. The government owns them and the falconer is allowed to use them, subject to stringent regulation.

The Klingons allow them to be exported?!

 

[blastula]

Where's George Carlin when you need him?

The crazy (see: now standard) is that Trumptards love Carlin. They think he's talking about "liberuls."

And to some extent he was. We see it on both sides. Trump's people want to ban some words, and some on the left want to ban others. The censorship issue isn't cleanly on one side of the political spectrum. Carlin would have no problem calling somebody queer, tranny, or retarded for example, and definitely wouldn't let people tell him what pronouns he must use for them.

Well, he did say words are neutral in themselves, it's how they are used that matters, a racist saying nigger is different than Richard Pryor saying it, that it's about context and intent. He didn't advise to use such words indiscriminately.

But of course, it's difficult to say what he really thought since that's going by what he said in his act. Not that we should appeal to him as an authority anyway. He might find it funny for somebody to appeal to him in that way, claiming to know what he would say about something after he's dead, and even whom he would vote fore (he said he doesn't vote in his act), much like how way religious sects claim to speak for their dead prophets. WWGCD?

 

[Elixir]

Technically, one does not own a bird of prey. The government owns them and the falconer is allowed to use them, subject to stringent regulation.

The Klingons allow them to be exported?!

Yes, but the weapons and cloaking device are disabled.
The Ferengi talked them into allowing it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Interesting - and scary - but doesn't address the question (repeated in bold above).

In that case of Peterson, they want to ban "him" and "her" used in the wrong place.

I think it's a humongous stretch to equivocate between some tribunal trying to dictate the context wherein a certain pronoun should be applied, and an actual Government Department being instructed to flat-out stop using non-controversial, meaningful terms like "evidence-based", "science-based" etc..
You might think they're similar, but they're worlds apart. Not that said tribunal might not have ambitions that would place them in a similar class of propagandists as the CDC has been forced into, but they're WAY far from that right now. The tribunal could simply refer to everyone as "it" - problem solved.

Eh? I'm not sure you understand. What the Tribunal is given is the power and policy to do is to force you or fine you if you refuse to call a man dressed as a woman "she" and instead call him/her "he" because you are violating his rights and discriminating against him because of "how he chooses to identify". I'm not making this up. Its madness.

 

[Elixir]

I think it's a humongous stretch to equivocate between some tribunal trying to dictate the context wherein a certain pronoun should be applied, and an actual Government Department being instructed to flat-out stop using non-controversial, meaningful terms like "evidence-based", "science-based" etc..
You might think they're similar, but they're worlds apart. Not that said tribunal might not have ambitions that would place them in a similar class of propagandists as the CDC has been forced into, but they're WAY far from that right now. The tribunal could simply refer to everyone as "it" - problem solved.

Eh? I'm not sure you understand. What the Tribunal is given is the power and policy to do is to force you or fine you if you refuse to call a man dressed as a woman "she" and instead call him/her "he" because you are violating his rights and discriminating against him because of "how he chooses to identify". I'm not making this up. Its madness.

Yeah, that does sound like madness. But it's entirely different from an administration banning the use of common, objective terms to suppress a threat posed by facts that run counter to the administration's assertions. That's not madness - it's intentional enforcement of corruption.

 

[LordKiran]

I think it's a humongous stretch to equivocate between some tribunal trying to dictate the context wherein a certain pronoun should be applied, and an actual Government Department being instructed to flat-out stop using non-controversial, meaningful terms like "evidence-based", "science-based" etc..
You might think they're similar, but they're worlds apart. Not that said tribunal might not have ambitions that would place them in a similar class of propagandists as the CDC has been forced into, but they're WAY far from that right now. The tribunal could simply refer to everyone as "it" - problem solved.

Eh? I'm not sure you understand. What the Tribunal is given is the power and policy to do is to force you or fine you if you refuse to call a man dressed as a woman "she" and instead call him/her "he" because you are violating his rights and discriminating against him because of "how he chooses to identify". I'm not making this up. Its madness.

Yeah, that does sound like madness. But it's entirely different from an administration banning the use of common, objective terms to suppress a threat posed by facts that run counter to the administration's assertions. That's not madness - it's intentional enforcement of corruption.

It's also fascist.

 

[bilby]

I think it's a humongous stretch to equivocate between some tribunal trying to dictate the context wherein a certain pronoun should be applied, and an actual Government Department being instructed to flat-out stop using non-controversial, meaningful terms like "evidence-based", "science-based" etc..
You might think they're similar, but they're worlds apart. Not that said tribunal might not have ambitions that would place them in a similar class of propagandists as the CDC has been forced into, but they're WAY far from that right now. The tribunal could simply refer to everyone as "it" - problem solved.

Eh? I'm not sure you understand. What the Tribunal is given is the power and policy to do is to force you or fine you if you refuse to call a man dressed as a woman "she" and instead call him/her "he" because you are violating his rights and discriminating against him because of "how he chooses to identify". I'm not making this up. Its madness.

It's probably not necessary to enshrine this in law; But it surely isn't 'madness' to do so. The fact is that if you call someone by any identifier that they can reasonably be expected to find offensive (eg because they explicitly told you so) then you are being a rude cunt, and deserve the disapprobation of your peers, if not the penalty of law, for your dickishness. If someone has said "Don't call me 'fatso', I find that nickname offensive", and you continue to call him 'fatso', then he is right to be upset by your behaviour, and might, in some jurisdictions, have legal recourse against you for your insulting behaviour. I see no reason why calling someone 'she' when he has asked you to desist from doing so is in any way different - regardless of YOUR beliefs about what pronoun or nickname is appropriate. It's not YOUR call.

Insult me once, that's a minor (and excusable) faux-pas. Insult me twice, you are being a cockhead. Insult me repeatedly, and you might expect the law to take a dim view.

And none of this in any way comes CLOSE to being as problematic as the government prohibiting its own scientific bodies from using words that are scientifically apt, for partisan political reasons.

 

[Opoponax]

The mischaracterization comes from equating what those in power can do compared to the control the essentially powerless have to make laws and policy.

So it was in your heads then, because I made no such equivalency.

Then please be specific.

The discussion here was prompted by me posting an article about the banning of certain words and phrases in certain types of government documents. That is, by any definition, government action. This particular form of government action was clearly initiated by the Executive branch because the CDC is under the control of the Executive branch. Thus, there is a conservative-controlled government action limiting words and phrases.

You said "some on the left... ." The tone and context seemed to communicate that you were at least implying there was an equivalency to speech-limiting actions between the left and right in this regard. My position is that there is no equivalency because there has been no comparable act by progressives in power in the U.S. federal government. The nearest thing that occurred to me was students at a public university shouting down conservative figures. But that's only because state universities could, under certain circumstances, be deemed state actors. However, that's still a far cry from direct state action forbidding the use of specific words and phrases.

So by all means, be specific about say, Democrats in the federal government using their powers to forbid the use of certain words and phrases.

And for the record, I only have one head.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You said "some on the left... ."

I also said "want to"